[notmindthegap]

Is it so crazy to assume McConaughey may enable more business through his influence than 8,000 employees combined?

If true, then it is justified by the argument Benioff put forward and that this article seems to also agree with.

[CharlieDigital]

To put this into perspective, assuming the average salary of the 8k employees is $125,000, that would only save 80 jobs.

[robotresearcher]

The cost of employing someone is roughly double their salary, once bonuses, benefits, payroll taxes and overheads are considered.

Plus for many companies, RSUs can be an additional significant fraction or even multiple of base salary.

So it's a lot of money, but would pay for fewer jobs than you might think.

It's also possible - I have no idea - that the marketing featuring McConaughy made more money in new sales than it cost. I assume this was the expectation for the deal.

[loeg]

Keep in mind fully loaded cost is approximately 2x salary. So maybe 40 jobs.

[screamingninja]

> that would only save 80 jobs

for one year

[brianwawok]

People really hate that. Also the secretary is not a fan that their CEO does indeed provide 4000x the value.

[NineStarPoint]

CEO is in the unique position of being capable of providing 4000X the value, due to being a force multiplier on the entire company (It’s the job they hold, not skill, that makes it impossible for a random secretary to have as much value to a company). On one hand, this means it is indeed worth paying a lot of money to get the best CEO you can, as small differences in skill have outsized influences on the end result. On the other hand, even the CEOs who are of neutral or negative value compared to someone you could pay 10X less still get paid 4000X more than the secretary.

Anyway, long way of saying than general salaries are a race to paying as low an amount as you can to get someone of the needed skill, while CEO salaries are about paying more than strictly necessary due to the effect even a small difference has from your biggest productivity multiplier. And given that most people will never have the opportunity to enter a role where their pay starts being calculated that way, it’s unsurprising they find it unfair (even if it’s logical).

[version_five]

I think that's a good point. I also think another way to look at it would be to actually understand their marketing and sales spend and look at what this cost represents.

If they've ceased all marketing and just hope MM will take up the slack, it might be a dumb move. If they have too many software or back office or whatever people, the decision to let them go is completely decoupled from what they spend on marketing. It's not an either / or, it's different part of the business entirely.